Quote:So what we have here is a sub that does not affect your masculinity one way or the other, and focuses your goals on what you prefer.
I more meant that it's really difficult to program masculinity in because of it not being focused on men for example.
Which is confirmed by the "what if someone identifies as a woman but is a man that likes women" stuff and confusion about how it can all be interpreted.
Reading that stuff why it frustrates me is it seems to go into the stuff in society at the moment of gender being an invention and such, people 'identifying' as anything they want to.
When in reality your gender is your gender, what you were born with.. not everything else society is inventing.
(09-28-2017, 05:04 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2017, 03:48 PM)Choice Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2017, 02:16 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]If the snipers only work when BOTH are sexually attracted to each other
I never knew that. Where did you read that affected side ALSO has to be attracted for the sniper to fire?
Mr. Anderson quote it from Shannon somewhere.
Perhaps Shannon can enlighten us. 
It was the last known candidate for the goal statement. I brought it up because IF the current statement relies on the woman already wanting you then it could cause problems. But actually we don't know what the current statement is, just wanted to make sure it has been thought of. It is in the first Shannon's discussion journal, somewhere around page 250 I believe, but not completely sure about the page.
(09-28-2017, 06:10 PM)Mr. Anderson Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2017, 05:04 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2017, 03:48 PM)Choice Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2017, 02:16 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]If the snipers only work when BOTH are sexually attracted to each other
I never knew that. Where did you read that affected side ALSO has to be attracted for the sniper to fire?
Mr. Anderson quote it from Shannon somewhere.
Perhaps Shannon can enlighten us.
It was the last known candidate for the goal statement. I brought it up because IF the current statement relies on the woman already wanting you then it could cause problems. But actually we don't know what the current statement is, just wanted to make sure it has been thought of. It is in the first Shannon's discussion journal, somewhere around page 250 I believe, but not completely sure about the page.
Which is why it would be helpful if Shannon could bring us up to speed in regards to that area, without divulging tech secrets of course.
Yes Shannon, please clarify this...If the targets need to be attracted to the user already there is no point of using DMSI. And the attraction waves too much most of the time.
Even on the user-side like I described above.
(09-28-2017, 05:27 AM)Shannon Wrote: [ -> ]I have also figured out how to trigger "script resurrection", which will allow me to cause you to be affected as if you are running sub X at the same time, as long as you have run it previously. Theoretically, this will allow me to trigger the activation of previously used AM/AF programming while you use DMSI. It remains to be seen just how feasible this concept is in actual practice, but I am going to try.
Interesting,is this going to trigger only AM/AF previous programming or will also trigger others like SM or other subs not directly relating?
(09-29-2017, 04:02 AM)Plouf Wrote: [ -> ]Yes Shannon, please clarify this...If the targets need to be attracted to the user already there is no point of using DMSI. And the attraction waves too much most of the time.
Even on the user-side like I described above.
I just posted on Mr. Anderson's DMSI 3.1 journal that I think this goal-phrasing would make an awesome sniper. It wouldn't be cool if it was for all people everywhere as the
main goal of the entire program, but just women (or men, if that's what you're into) you know as one of the snipers. I mean, think about it. I know I wonder what women I know harbor secret fantasies about having sex with me...wouldn't be awesome if we could "out" them (and even have sex with them, if we so choose) by sniping the shit out of them 24/7?
Yes, having a sniper especially for it would be great. Really great.
But the general goal phrasing shouldn't have any restriction.
I was just mulling over OAA (overcome approach anxiety) and thinking that I really don't have any. I think OAA is definitely in the script, IIRC. So...why don't I approach? Because IDGAF is too strong. More proof Shannon is really good at what he does. It was the intent of the program to instill that attitude. It just needs a bit of tweaking.
I literally have zero motivation to approach anyone, ever. Not that I think DMSI should be getting me to seduce - I'm not saying that. This comes down to being open and interested in merely talking, flirting, and interacting with women. I'm not sure I have walls up, but because I just don't care, there's a wall of sorts. I should feel motivated to speak with them, interact, inquire about their life, etc. Talking and interacting with women should excite and interest me. Then, when we're talking...Well, that's when they should start seducing. Of course, being more approachable so women feel safer and confident about approaching us - ultimately to seduce us - would be a very good thing, too.
Quote:I literally have zero motivation to approach anyone, ever. Not that I think DMSI should be getting me to seduce - I'm not saying that. This comes down to being open and interested in merely talking, flirting, and interacting with women. I'm not sure I have walls up, but because I just don't care, there's a wall of sorts. I should feel motivated to speak with them, interact, inquire about their life, etc
That's just like me RT !
I feel like the IDGAF attitude is great but what's lacking is just the motivation.
I don't know if it's the best way to adress that issue but maybe DMSI should also motivate the user to socialize, make connections with women. You suggested in your list these points and I higly agree with them.
Quote:*Create "flirtation is a fun, enjoyable game" programming.
*Increase care-free/happy-go-lucky/playful sense of humor, relaxed/come-what-may/"love life" attitude.
*Manifest people, places, and experiences for "pure fun & enjoyment,"
Some users like Rayon complained about not being able to approach women easily on DMSI. (Whereas AM helped)
These points would resolve both issue. The lack of motivation to approach women and flirting/aproach issues.
Yes it's true DMSI is supposed to make women seduce the user but at the end of the day the user is the one to decide who/when/how to fuck (with willing women). And as we see, that alone can be an issue for many users. Or else nobody would be on DMSI in the first place. If we could get women by mere conscious efforts.
I think there needs to be a clear distinction between outcome independence and IDGAF.
Outcome independence - you see a beautiful girl, something about her intrigues you and you become curious: I wonder what she's like? I wonder if we will have any chemistry? I'll go over and satisfy my curiosity - if we like each other, great, if we don't, who cares, it wasn't meant to be.
IDGAF - you see a beautiful girl, meh, who cares? I don't need anybody but myself to be happy.
Outcome independence is what we want, I think.
Although just to clarify, the intrigue/curiosity should lead you to going over and opening, but as you really aren't trying to get anything from the interaction other than satisfying your curiosity, she should still be the one seducing you. There shouldn't be scripting that then forces you to seduce her, or even meet her half way, imo.
(09-30-2017, 01:14 AM)ichigo Wrote: [ -> ]I think there needs to be a clear distinction between outcome independence and IDGAF.
Outcome independence - you see a beautiful girl, something about her intrigues you and you become curious: I wonder what she's like? I wonder if we will have any chemistry? I'll go over and satisfy my curiosity - if we like each other, great, if we don't, who cares, it wasn't meant to be.
IDGAF - you see a beautiful girl, meh, who cares? I don't need anybody but myself to be happy.
Outcome independence is what we want, I think.
Although just to clarify, the intrigue/curiosity should lead you to going over and opening, but as you really aren't trying to get anything from the interaction other than satisfying your curiosity, she should still be the one seducing you. There shouldn't be scripting that then forces you to seduce her, or even meet her half way, imo.
I wonder if the meet-her-half scripting can cause confusion in terms of "Do I approach him? Or does he approach?" due to mixed signals/intentions.
You know I think the IDGAF is sort of due to stripping away all that shame and guilt about fitting in. To put it bluntly, some people are just really dull. Carrying on a conversation can be a straight up chore. It might just be a phase where we let go of what we should do and embrace what we want to instead. At least that's what's going on for me. I find myself being less apologetic about not being interested in people and surrounding myself with people I just naturally work with. This is probably more relevant to those with nice guy programming where you had the idea drilled into your head that it's important that people perceive you as a "good" person more than just being yourself.
(10-06-2017, 06:52 PM)mat422 Wrote: [ -> ]You know I think the IDGAF is sort of due to stripping away all that shame and guilt about fitting in. To put it bluntly, some people are just really dull. Carrying on a conversation can be a straight up chore. It might just be a phase where we let go of what we should do and embrace what we want to instead. At least that's what's going on for me. I find myself being less apologetic about not being interested in people and surrounding myself with people I just naturally work with. This is probably more relevant to those with nice guy programming where you had the idea drilled into your head that it's important that people perceive you as a "good" person more than just being yourself.
Good point. Perhaps just an optimization here, or a tweak there, then. "Nice guy" programming has hurt me in life, too. It's more like "being completely fake" and "lie about your feelings" programming.
Oh look! I can speak again. Isn't that nice.